Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Illinois Smoking Ban, uncontitutional?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Illinois Smoking Ban, uncontitutional?

    My opinion of the Illinois Smoking Ban is that it is unconstitutional and I will never inforce it.

    I am curious who agrees and disagrees with me and why.
    36
    Yes
    27.78%
    10
    No
    66.67%
    24
    I don't know/would have to do more research
    5.56%
    2
    "Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

    - Frederick Douglass

  • #2
    Well if you read the constitution, you will see that Congress has the right to regulate commerce. Understandibly this is the Illinois government here but the General Assembly would be Illinois' version of Congress and they have the right to regulate commerce. I am in favor of the smoking ban. It's nice going to bars without having some dbag or dbags smoking one after another cigarette and blowing the smoke in your direction. Me not smoking doesn't affect anyone whereas someone smoking by me infringes on my health.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by tutt101 View Post
      My opinion of the Illinois Smoking Ban is that it is unconstitutional and I will never inforce it.
      Please submit your brief outlining which part of the Constitution is being violated and why such ban is in violation.
      183 FBINA

      Comment


      • #4
        xxxxxxxxxx
        Last edited by LawDog99; 09-08-2011, 11:30 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Me personally,i don't smoke,but i'am against the smoking ban because it allows these legislators to have to much power,and they( legislators)start to slowly erode away at our freedoms,because once we let them get away with that,they start to think,ok we got away with that,what else can we get away with?I know lets go after those big bad guns in IL,these legislators are getting too comfortable,thats why mayor Daley felt he could get away with his plan on having a 100 mile gun free zone around Chicago.You just can't legislate your way to being healthy,an individual has to want to be healthy,its not these legislators job to tell me not to smoke,or this is what you have to eat,if a person wants a big juicy heart stopping burger,thats his or her choice,after all this is America,Land of the free.

          Comment


          • #6
            I was initially against the ban because if a business wants to allow smokers then it is their decision, just as it is non-smokers decision to go to that particular establishment or not. However, it makes it more fair to workers to be able to work somewhere and not jeopardize their health. Of course you are thinking "they have the right to work elsewhere", but they should not have to choose between a larger paycheck or more desired occupation and their health. I smoked for seven years and quit cold turkey when I joined the military. I was still initially against the ban because I believed it was up to the individual businesses. I am for it now, because I do enjoy the fresh air and understand that the ban is saving many of us from a troubled future. It is not un-constitutional, smoking in public is a nuisance to the majority as well as a heath hazard. The people of the state of Illinois voted the law makers into their position, the majority of the state is glad to comply with this law. Believe me, this is not the first step to nazi Germany, it is the opposite.

            Comment


            • #7
              First and foremost I would like to say that I am neither a scholar nor am I brilliant. But I do not take decisions in life like this one lightly. I appreciate the comments and hope to get some feedback on this post.

              I must also say that I take my responsibilities as an officer very serious. But to say that we must blindly enforce any law that comes down and let the courts handle it later, to me, is unethical. I did a little research (very little) but found that most oaths that I have found include something other than following orders, or enforcing all laws. Most say something to the affect of following the law and/or enforcing the U.S. Constitution. To me, that means if a written law blatantly violates the U.S. Constitution, that it would be unethical to enforce.

              If your state wrote a law that said all guns are illegal and peace officers are empowered to enter into any residence at any time to search for guns, would you enforce that law? I know; it’s an extreme example. But it illustrates my point and I hope to God you all would not enforce it!

              Now back to the smoking ban. This started with me, as most things do, with an initial, “Feeling” that it was just wrong. But I would not say I refuse to do something just because it feels wrong, so I did some research. I will keep this as short as possible, but there is a lot to say!

              First, the Act itself.

              There are many problems I have with the Act. First off, the only justification they make is that smoking is bad for your health. We’ll get back to that later.

              Another is that the Act defined everything in the country as a public place with the sole exception of a “private residence.” Even a “private club,” as the Act itself states, that is owned in whole by a private person, and requires exclusive membership. I’m sorry, but a private club is a private club, period. In my opinion this is how it sounds so good to people, they can say, “We are only banning smoking in public,” but people don’t realize every thing is public to them.

              Additionally I find it disturbing that the General Assembly decided to put it in the Act that smoking is “allowed” in a private residence. They are not saying you have the right to do it, but that they will allow it, which leaves it open for later attacks.

              I will not even mention the cost requirements of those stupid signs…OK, well maybe I’ll mention it.

              I will continue by responding to LawDog99’s questions.

              1) “Which constitution are you referring to?
              Both the U.S. and the State of Illinois. However, I have not been able to as much research into the State Constitution and the Illinois Supreme Court.

              2) “Which specific provision(s) of that constitution are you offering as violated?”

              Illinois Constitution: Article 1, Section 6 along with Section 24
              U.S. Constitution: the Forth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments

              3) Do you have any applicable case law that supports your argument?

              In reference to the Forth and Fifth Amendments, I will simply quote Mr. Justice Brandeis in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478:
              "The protection guaranteed by the [Fourth and Fifth] Amendments is much broader in scope. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."

              I will now focus on the Ninth Amendment.

              There are so many references I could make that show the intent and belief of the U.S. Supreme Court that the Ninth Amendment is as powerful, at least, and most likely more powerful than any of the other amendments in that it provides us with many more rights than they do.

              “To believe that a right…may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever.” Mr Justice Goldberg, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, decided in 1965

              The U.S. Supreme Court also acknowledges the right to privacy

              “The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 , as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." * We recently referred [381 U.S. 479, 485] in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 656 , to the Fourth Amendment as creating a "right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people." See Beaney, The Constitutional Right to Privacy, 1962 Sup. Ct. Rev. 212; Griswold, The Right to be Let Alone, 55 Nw. U. L. Rev. 216 (1960).
              Mr. Justice Douglas also in Griswold v. Connecticut

              So to decipher how the U.S.S.C. would decide whether an invasion of privacy is too much, I quote NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288,307. A “governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be acheaved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.”

              And Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 524, “Where there is a significant encroachment upon personal liberty, the State may prevail only upon showing a subordinating interest which is compelling.”

              And, the law must be shown “necessary, and not merely rationally related, to the accomplishment of a permissible state policy.”

              Even a dissenting opinion by Mr. Justice Stewart in the Griswold v. Connecticut case, admits that the Tenth Amendment, “states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered.”

              I conclude that the rights of privacy, property, and against unlawful searches and seizures, backed by the basic fundamentals of freedom and liberty that this country is founded on, and that the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly decided cases with, requires this law to be damned!

              To return to the smoking ban and its only supporting argument; being that smoking is unhealthy, I conclude that the U.S.S.C.’s required subordinating interest and necessity for the law are nowhere to be found when weighed against the right of privacy for private property owners.

              I also feel I must state that some individuals expansion that their right to be free of smoke extends beyond the rights of private property owners to allow or not allow whatever legal activities they want, to be disturbing and, in my opinion, an obvious precursor to much larger and more significant intrusions.

              To answer your fifth question: I do not smoke and I think it’s disgusting. I would therefore have no grounds to challenge the law.
              "Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

              - Frederick Douglass

              Comment


              • #8
                Lawdog99,
                You were correct in your assessment.
                183 FBINA

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'll pose a question here to all.

                  Who's willing to walk into a VFW and cite a WWII veteran or Vietnam veteran for smoking in there?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The VFW is a private club with private membership, they are allowed to smoke inside of it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      That is not true. If that were the case, bars would become "private clubs" and give their patrons a free membership so they could smoke.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        First of all, Tutt101, your opinion is well thought out. But I think we should know the background of the Supreme court cases which your citing.

                        Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479-A Connecticut law criminalizing the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy.

                        Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438-The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment's proscription on unreasonable search and seizure did not apply to wiretaps.

                        Boyd v. United States is a case from 1886 in which a man had items he imports siezed because he didn't pay customs duties.

                        Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)[1], was a case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures", may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as federal courts.

                        NAACP v. Alabama and Bates v. Little Rock are both civil rights cases in which the the government tried unscrupulously to obtain ther NAACP's membership lists.

                        Sometimes you can make your point simply by making your point.

                        And sometimes..............................

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by cubsfan07 View Post
                          That is not true. If that were the case, bars would become "private clubs" and give their patrons a free membership so they could smoke.
                          It is true, that is why the VFW is allowed to be smoked in. It is also why in "dry" cities the VFW can still serve. I do not know the reason why businesses do not become "private". It may be because the VFW is a not for profit organization. If a bar would like to become not for profit and take "donations" just to allow smoking then they can. I think money is more important though. Also, businesses that have a majority of their sales coming from tobacco can still allow smoking, such as cigar shops. I don't see how people can believe the government is being unruly with this, this is happening in many European countries as well. Smoking serves no purpose, it's sole purpose is to kill you. If you end up dying from smoking related problems then the cigarette has accomplished it's mission. No one is saying that people can't smoke, they just can't do it around me and my loved ones. Remember that this ban is not just for bars, but for zoos, amusement parks, etc. America being the land of the free does not mean we let people do whatever they want (within reason) wherever they want to. If the majority of the state saw a problem with this then it would be reflected in the courts. This is a Democracy, majority rules.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cable View Post
                            First of all, Tutt101, your opinion is well thought out. But I think we should know the background of the Supreme court cases which your citing.

                            Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479-A Connecticut law criminalizing the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy.

                            Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438-The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment's proscription on unreasonable search and seizure did not apply to wiretaps.

                            Boyd v. United States is a case from 1886 in which a man had items he imports siezed because he didn't pay customs duties.

                            Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)[1], was a case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures", may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as federal courts.

                            NAACP v. Alabama and Bates v. Little Rock are both civil rights cases in which the the government tried unscrupulously to obtain ther NAACP's membership lists.

                            Sometimes you can make your point simply by making your point.

                            And sometimes..............................
                            I understand this and did not try to hide it. I used these quotes to try to illustrate what I feel the U.S. Supreme Court would decide under these circumstances and why.
                            "Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

                            - Frederick Douglass

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by MorseAve1134 View Post
                              It is true, that is why the VFW is allowed to be smoked in. It is also why in "dry" cities the VFW can still serve.
                              Actually, under the Smoke Free Illinois Act, the VFW is still a public place and smoking is illegal. See section 10, Definitions; “Private club,” and “Public place.” Although that does'nt mean it will be enforced!

                              I do not know the reason why businesses do not become "private". It may be because the VFW is a not for profit organization. If a bar would like to become not for profit and take "donations" just to allow smoking then they can. I think money is more important though.
                              See the above definitions within the act to see why this is not true.

                              Also, businesses that have a majority of their sales coming from tobacco can still allow smoking, such as cigar shops.
                              This is mostly true (it actually requires 80% of the gross income to be from tobacco type items, not just a majority). AND, it only applies to stores that were in operation prior to The Act. If someone wants to open a new tobacco store and allow smoking, it must be, “located in a freestanding structure occupied solely by the business and smoke from the business does not migrate into an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited.” This makes new stores all but impossible if you think about it. The store would have to be in the middle of nowhere to insure all smoke stays away from any other buildings!

                              I don't see how people can believe the government is being unruly with this, this is happening in many European countries as well.
                              I don’t see how people still think we’re in Europe! So, should we follow some of the other examples we have from Europe? Germany? France? Russia?

                              Smoking serves no purpose, it's sole purpose is to kill you. If you end up dying from smoking related problems then the cigarette has accomplished it's mission. No one is saying that people can't smoke, they just can't do it around me and my loved ones. Remember that this ban is not just for bars, but for zoos, amusement parks, etc. America being the land of the free does not mean we let people do whatever they want (within reason) wherever they want to. If the majority of the state saw a problem with this then it would be reflected in the courts. This is a Democracy, majority rules.
                              A couple of things here.
                              > If you don’t like smoking, don’t smoke. If you don’t want your family around smoke, don’t go to a location that is private property where the owner allows smoking. Your pursuit of happiness (ie. Staying away from smoke) does not out rank my property rights.
                              > The bold area: Actually, in America you are supposed to be able to do whatever you want (within reason) wherever you want. That’s kinda the point!
                              > And no, majority is not always supposed to rule. That’s why we have the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and our rights; to protect against an oppressive majority.
                              "Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

                              - Frederick Douglass

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 7527 users online. 389 members and 7138 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 19,482 at 12:44 PM on 09-29-2011.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X